Jury Nullification
Jury nullification is defined as a scenario where a jury in a criminal case chooses to acquit a defendant in the face of irrefutably incriminating evidence. It is important to note that there are no procedural rules that make this option available to juries, but it is rather a result of structural elements of the justice system. Specifically, there are no sanctions available to prevent juries from reaching a verdict that goes against their judgement of the evidence. In addition, a defendant who has been acquitted cannot be tried again, which makes nullification a powerful tool. In the justice system in the United States, the prosecution cannot even appeal an acquittal by a jury.
According to the “Fully Informed Jury Association” or “FIJA” jury nullification occurs in 3 to 4 per cent of all criminal trials in the United States. Two main motivations typically prompt juries to do this. They believe that the law a guilty verdict would be based on is fundamentally unjust or that the punishment prescribed for the offence is too harsh.
There is no definitive way to prevent juries from acquitting guilty defendants short of implementing fundamental structural changes in the justice system. However, practical hurdles have been established to suppress jury nullification. For example, in Sparf v. United States, the Supreme Court decided with a majority of 5-4 that judges have no obligation to inform juries about an option to acquit a defendant if they find him guilty. Defence lawyers run the risk of judges declaring a mistrial if they present a case for jury nullification. In some states, it is illegal to present an argument for jury nullification. The result of these restrictions is that most juries may not even be aware of their option to use nullification.
In recent years, nullification has been used most often in substance abuse cases, where juries disagree with the criminalization of the underlying behaviour. Proponents claim this sort of protest was one of many factors contributing to or expediting political change that led to the decriminalization of certain substances. Historically, jury nullification was famously used to protest the “Fugitive Slave Act”, which mandated that escaped slaves were to be returned to their captors upon capture. In the Union, Jury Nullification was used to free these slaves. Jury Nullification can also be a tool for a popular uprising to undermine the authority of tyrannical regimes. Proponents view it as a crucial way to impose checks and balances on the judiciary.
Critics of jury nullification often warn of the potential for misuse. While it may have been a tool to free slaves, there are cases in the post-civil war South where white defendants accused of crimes against blacks were acquitted by all-white juries despite overwhelming evidence. There are several more recent examples of the potential misuse of jury nullification. There has been speculation that the LAPD police officers involved in the 1991 beating of Rodney King were beneficiaries of jury nullification. Critics believe these police officers were acquitted by a bigoted jury despite clear video evidence. This caused widespread outrage and intensive riots in which many were killed or injured. Another prominent case is the 1955 lynching of Emmet Till, a young African American who became an icon of the Civil Rights movement. In a controversial trial, Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam were acquitted of Emmet Till’s murder by an all-white jury despite overwhelming evidence of guilt. Alan Derschowitz, a former professor at Harvard Law School, referred to Jury Nullification as a “redneck trick”, alluding to a history of abuse by bigoted juries. Some argue, however, that juries are being scapegoated in these cases. They point out that juries reflect society. If they are racist, then so are the judges, legislators and law enforcement. For example, they point to the Sheriff who gave obviously false testimony at the trial of Bryant and Milam, claiming Emmet Till was alive and that the body belonged to an individual who was white. Proponents of jury nullification argue that the acquittal of Emmet Till’s killers was not primarily a function of a bigoted jury, but rather a consequence of a racist society where a bigoted majority elected corrupt officials. Hence the concept of jury nullification cannot be blamed for outcomes that result from a deeply flawed society and system.
Below is a list of questions to be considered. If you would like to contribute to the conversation, please comment with your thoughts and ideas.
Should jury nullification be regulated? If so how and to what extent?
Is it still a relevant mechanism in modern-day society? Do the potential benefits outweigh the risk of misuse?
Please also post your feedback on this article and suggest ideas for other topics you would like to see discussed in this format.
Sources:
JSTOR - "In Defense of Jury Nullification Paul Butler"
Jury Nullification - The Evolution of a Doctrine
